What do we know about the man who took the Nessie footage in late May 2007?

Does Gordon Holmes have visions of becoming the next Sherlock Holmes, following in the footsteps of that character’s creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?

It is with no disrespect that I compile for my readers the facts that Mr. Holmes has placed out there in cyberspace about himself. He has freely admitted that he has filmed fairies, seen apparent alien black cats (ABCs, alien big cats, as they are often called because they are “out of place” or alien – not from outer space), taken electrical spectrograms of what he thinks are large electric eels in Lake Morar, and has a “sort of medical condition…for visualising a sort of frame from a Dream whilst being conscious.” Now he’s getting publicity for filming Nessie. Whoa.

As I’ve mentioned before in print and in interviews, a videotape or photograph of a cryptid should never be analyzed without regard to looking into the background of the person that took the image or images.

I decided to start doing such a background check, as I mentioned recently to the media, to look at the “footprints” that Mr. Holmes has left behind.

Immediately after the news of the new Nessie videotape broke in Yorkshire and Scotland, I found that Holmes had a biographical page on the site of the Department of Archaeological Sciences at Bradford University. It clearly identified the same man pictured there and at Loch Ness as Gordon T. Holmes.

He was listed as holding the position of Media and IT Technician, which dovetailed with what he was technically doing at the Loch, when trying to film Nessie.

In searching for what publications he may have written, I found these at Amazon UK:

Holmes on his deeper university staff page notes that Saltaire Amateur Space Research Group is the SASRG Press, his own press.

Gordon Holmes has authored on his elaborate theories linking megalithic art to patterns in the sky. He writes:

Self-published my ideas and theories about the Carvings in book form: –
‘2000BC A Neolithic Stone Age Odyssey’
‘2000 BC A Cup & Ring Stone Trek’.
SASRG PRESS
Also self published 2 Astronomy related books:
‘Merlin’s Meteorite’
‘The Complex Creation of all Universes’.
Latest Book:
‘Trice Visualisation’
which describes a sort of medical condition I have for visualising a sort of frame from a Dream whilst being conscious. Intricate Patterns rotate, or the inside of a room appears to be within arms length of me, also Cartoon-like Sketches. These images only last about 40 seconds before fading and usually the experience occurs every few months on average. – Gordon T. Holmes

Next, Holmes tells us he’s filmed fairies and seen black cats:

FAIRIES ON ILKLEY MOOR The Evidence.
Booklet + Video CD £4.00
Video Evidence of Fairy like people on Ilkley Moor & Cottingley Beck
CD includes Video extracts and images of Fairy-like figures.
Im not the type of Person who believes in UFOs, Fairies and the like, so my Camcorder must be lying.

Beware of the Newby Cote Black Cat!

Just after Foot & Mouth outbreak finished, I saw a Black Cat stalking Sheep at the little Hamlet of Newby Cote, near Clapham, Yorkshire Dales. I reported it to the Craven Herald and 2 weeks later someone else reported it a few miles away from my location. Its tail was long as its body in length and it only looked to be a young and lean Adult, possible a Panther or another type of Wild Moggie. Certainly not a domestic one (have had 3 – should know).Gordon T. Holmes

Realistically, we must now admit, at the very least, Gordon T. Holmes is a bit eccentric, perhaps a shade too gullible, and if he still believes in the Cottingley Fairies photographs, which were promoted by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, then he is not current on his reading.

In late 1981 and mid-1982 respectively, Frances Way (née Griffiths) and Elsie Hill (née Wright), who took the Cottingley photographs admitted that the first four pictures were fakes.

Having gotten caught up in the tangled web involving those photographs in our 1975 book, The Unidentified, Jerry Clark and I have written frequently since then, exposing and discussing them as fakes.

Another of the Cottingley Fairy photographs.

Frankly, I think this all throws the new Nessie footage in some doubt, for, after all, what was seen and filmed might just be a small eel, a porpoising otter, or an underweight seal.

Or are we to merely assume that Gordon T. Holmes is a very lucky man?

Okay, what is a skeptic cryptozoologist to think now?

About Loren ColemanLoren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

The footage was always questionable to me, unless someone has seen a version with much higher definition than highly-compressed YouTube quality. It isn’t exactly ‘Blobsquatch’ quality, but it specifically omits, by it’s very nature, the kind of detail we need to distinguish shapes under the water from shadows or other artifacts of the captured image. His background seems to rule out hoaxery, but does indeed suggest he shot something innocuous and now claims it miraculous.

I don’t know what to think of him, but I can say this, sometimes the strangest of people are the ones who are the most gifted. We just do not understand their gift because of its form and scarcity.I’m leaving my mind open for further discussion on this topic.

Well, while I admit that Holmes does easily meet the qualifications for being “eccentric”, don’t cast aspersions too quickly. Just because he claims to have filmed something odd in Cottingley doesn’t mean he believes the girls’ photographs were real. Remember, although they freely admitted hoaxing the pictures, they swore until their dying days that they had actually encountered fairies in Cottingley. It is perhaps in this context that he references the place as being meaningful with regards to fairie sightings, or even simply he is regarding as remarkable the fact (I use the word loosely here, not having seen his footage) that he has captured something fairie-like on film in the place where forged fairie photos had been taken.

I dunno, I think we need to be cautious here. I keep thinking what would happen if one of us went public with footage of, say, Bigfoot…something not immediately dismissable as a hoax. What would people say when they found out that we post to a CZ website, and certainly are knowledgeable about how the animal is reported to appear and behave? And worse, what if the BF in the footage did something characteristic of reports, something not normally seen in your blobsquatch/tubesquatch fakery? Would people dismiss it, simply because they could say that we had foreknowledge of that behaviour, so therefore we must have included that in our hoax to lend it more credibility?

I’m not saying that what Loren is doing doesn’t have value, especially in this day and age with SO MANY fakes around.

Ultimately though, I don’t think it matter WHO took the footage, whether it was Stephen Hawking, the Pope, or Joe Isuzu. I, for one, think the footage is interesting enough that it should undergo further analysis, but I don’t claim that this will turn out to be anything extraordinary.

This fellow seems to be a standard-issue English Eccentric (a type we could do with more of, IMO). He’s not THAT strange, over there.

Alien Big Cats in the UK have been confirmed often enough to no longer be red-flag items.

The fairy film should be analyzed for evidence of fakery. That WOULD be a big red flag, if found, or even if there were strong grounds for suspicion.

What’s seen could have been hoaxed if the object were pulled by an underwater cable, and were designed so as to undulate slightly and bob up and down every so often. (It wouldn’t take complex electronics to do this. But it would take skills and money and test-runs and a confederate or two. I’d be more worried about the chance of a hoax if this fellow had a nautical-engineering background, or were a surfer.)

If it does turn out to be a cable-pulled fake, those who said it was an otter (or otters) will look even more foolish than those who said it was Nessie.

“Shadows on the water”? But the object doesn’t look like something ON the water, but IN the water (and confirms it by breeching). What sort of object would produce a shadow of this shape and speed for this length of time (30 seconds)? Professional photo analysis will be able to rule out shadows.

“Intersecting waves”? (From a previous thread.) But there are no non-intersecting waves in sight (outside their point of supposed intersection).

You could argue that any of us that believe in cryptozoology are eccentric. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a very intelligent man yet believed in spiritualism,something that most people find unbelievable. All films, reports and photos should be given the same neutral scrutiny, under scientific conditions. Then no matter who saw what or took films/photos is irrelevant, only the scientific evidence will count.

I have written articles on how eyewitness testimony should be made more scientific by applying a set of rules and needs to applied as soon as possible as memory fades.

Here again we come to some fine lines. I absolutely agree with Loren’s stance that we need to check the “footprints” of those who have come forth with what they purport to be evidence. Such simple checks can quickly expose hoaxers (a la Todd Standing, for example) or provided the needed grain of salt with which to take said “evidence.”

Mnynames and some of the other posters on this thread have also raised a valid point. Eccentricity, belief (or the desire to do so), don’t necessarily negate the legitimacy of what’s been presented.

I have to admit, however, that unless there’s something as outstanding as the Patterson-Gimlin film being presented, I’ll salt my perspective liberally.

Perhaps it’s simply that the people who believe really fiercely are the ones who are most likely to be out there, looking hard. And some of them maybe being hopefully optimistic about what they find?

Hmmm, I live in the Ilkley / Saltaire /Cottingley area. Whilst I have no personal experiences of anything odd in Cottingley or Saltaire, I can confirm that there is an awful lot of evidence of neolithic occupancy in the area and there is definitely some sort of feeling that comes over me when walking over Ilkley Moor and the related areas – others I have spoken to feel the same – especially near the areas of carved rocks and standing stones.

And I remember rumours a few years ago of ABC sitings on Ilkley / Rombalds / Addingham Moorside (they are all basically the same big moor)

Maybe the above is irrelevant, but I do agree that it is a good idea to know something about the background of whoever has found some ‘evidence’ – even though that evidence should also be dispassionately analysed. I also feel it may be useful to know something about the area a person is operating in, especially if some of their previous work is intimately tied up with that area.

I’m no expert (I’m an artist, if anything) and I’m not interpreting anything. Perhaps Mr Holmes is getting similar feelings and is interpreting them to fit in with his beliefs – something everyone does, I suspect. Or perhaps he’s more sensitive than I am.

Sticking in my ha’porth about Nessie – I believe that all very large bodies of water are likely to contain a few very large animals. The footage shown is as likely as not to show a very large fish (perhaps very old and so outside the normal size range of it’s species), coming to surface for whatever reason. Do we know anything about the weather conditions that day and for a few days previous?

Because this footage will (I trust) receive prompt and thorough examination and stabilization + enhancement by video-analysis professionals and relevant zoologists (unlike what’s happened with the Patterson Film), I think we’ll be able to have a much firmer grasp of what’s in it and what isn’t within a couple of months.

I think most of their findings will lean (cautiously to be sure) in the direction of validation.

I think most people are very Un-observant and it is very possible that “belief that something IS out there, can improve ones odds of capturing video/film or other evidence. For instance, it is widely unreported about Patterson/Gimlin film that they’d been out there for 2 weeks before finding “Patty”, AND that he’d done numerous hunts that came up empty before that fateful encounter. The fact that he (Patterson)believed in the possibilty of an encounter (within the context of his documentary filming) had him prepared enough to actually get footage. The average person is taken off gaurd when this happens and thus are not ready to film anything…before it’s long gone and they’ve changed their diapers.

From the text above: “…Gordon T. Holmes is a bit eccentric, perhaps a shade too gullible…”

What I saw in this video clip after repeated close scrutiny was a dark shape of unknown size moving just below the surface of the water, nothing more. I read a lot of comments that people were seeing long necks, humps, flippers, the surface of the water being broken, and other precise details that elude me. I don’t think Gordon Holmes is the only one who’s a shade too gullible.

I think this guy likes to investigate things. Just because he has seen “fairies” and big cats does not disturb me. I bet he’s just a hobbist who enjoys his privately held theories and talking about them. He’s obviously trying, and maybe he got lucky and saw some weird stuff. Who knows. If someone looked into the background of most of us, I bet we’d all be questionable and probably a bit less driven. I think Mr. Holmes’ biggest fault is talking about himself too much on the internet… and that fault could be applied to any blog out there as well. 😀

Exscuse me if im wrong, but wouldnt this gentleman be reffered to in his native land as a bit of a “nutter”? I have to agree wholesale with the idea that a persons footprint or background is extremely important as a resource for examining movies like this, or anything out of the norm, for that matter. It normally sets a clear and defined path a person has taken up to the moment of capturing his current footage/photographic evidence. It can also help establish a motive, be it benign in nature or fraudulent. This gentleman has produced several books on topics marginally related to mythical creatures, and it seems his next logical step after alien cats and fairies, would be the hidden denizen of the loch. I suppose i should reserve judgement in any respect however, to see if this Mr. Holmes desires a payday for his footage. Guess time will tell.
Rap

Well, it definately casts the footage in a different light, but I would say we should be careful how much we detract from the credibility of the footage based solely on his eccentricity. I would say we should remember it is not only straight laced, normal people who are going to see these things or get footage of something strange. I feel being what we might consider to be strange or eccentric does not make a person exempt from being able to take footage of Nessie or any other cryptids. What worries me more than his eccentricity is the videos he is selling of faeries which, if obviously hoaxed and not a misidentification, could point to him being able and willing to manipulate footage. This information has definately raised an eyebrow with me, but in the end, I agree with Mnynames in saying that we should try to look at the footage on its own terms, for what it shows. Although I do not think it is as amazing and incredible as some have said, I think this footage is intriguing enough to look at further no matter who made it.

I applaud this guy. Here we are talking about his work regardless of what we think about it.
Crypto-zoology will never be a mainstream discipline no matter how fancy & scientific we talk. Figures like Holmes are the reason Crypto-zoology and Alternate studies is such a rich and interesting field for most of us.

Walking the hills of the Highlands is a magical experience and I, for one, felt that magic, so hey, bring on the fairies!

A battery-powered diver’s sled, such as skin divers use to cover more territory and pack more baggage, could have towed “Nessie” at the speed in the video. If it been been 30 feet down and 100 feet ahead, it wouldn’t have left a wake on the surface.

I agree with mystery_man; the issue shouldn’t be the person who makes a case but the case itself. Discrediting the video by means of Holmes’ character is an an ad hominem argument, and- by definition- a logical fallacy.

Since Holmes is the one making the claim of having seen the LNM, he holds the burden of proof; therefore, the focus of inquiry should logically be the video itself and whether it is sufficient evidence for the existence of the LNM.

Roger Knights raises a good point, but if that was the case, the question is, was the person filming taken in by someone playing silly buggers, or just someone out in the loch doing their own thing. A man made object does not automatically make the film maker complicit in a hoax.

Which raises a further point – we can now draw a pretty firm conclusion how Holmes (like most people) would interpret an unrecognisable object according to his own beliefs (‘I can’t tell what that is – it must be Nessie’) so there will be other footage out there, taken by completely unimaginitive people (‘I can’t tell what that is – oh well, it’s not important’), or people who shoehorn the unknown into known categories (‘Can’t tell what that is – must be an otter’)

Some of that footage may be really useful, as well. And no-one’s going to think it’s important enough to show people. Grrr…

I don’t think that Holmes deliberately faked this footage and I bet that his videos of fairies are just something rustling in the leaves on the forest floor. He is a willing believer but that doesn’t make him a fraud.

But there is one thing that he has that others here don’t. He is out there on the lake or in the forest, with a camera when the rest of us are at home in front of the TV.

Any footage that he comes up with should be suspect simply because he is gullible (but then aren’t we all?). All naturalistic explanations should be exhausted first. This Nessie footage is most likely an otter and it will take strong proof before I believe otherwise.

Many of the commentators here seem to have a phobia about having their bubble burst. The propensity to explain uncomfortable phenomena as misidentifications of known phenomena never fails to amuse me. Funny how they also baptize their phobia ‘scientific attitude’. LOL.

I want to express my appreciation to those making comments today who have neither attacked nor ignored the footage based upon my sharing of what Mr. Holmes has put out there about himself. Needless to say, his background raised questions for me.

But then, it raises questions, of course, based upon everyone’s own point of view, and I encourage everyone to ask the ones you wish to pursue.

Regarding what Cryptomundo is, well that obviously is many diverse things to different people.

What do they say, don’t judge a book by it’s cover. A little nutty or not, I think the film should be looked at by professional film people. Even though I still don’t think it will prove anything. You can’t really see anything in the film but shadow. I honestly think you guys & gals that are seeing a head and flippers. Well, it’s just wishful thinking. Unless you have some super computer that is showing more than I see which I doubt. Anyway I think all film of cryptids should be professionally looked at and analyzed. Unless it’s just so plainly faked it’s stupid, like some stuff I have seen on here. All I can say is I wish I had the time to go into the bush and do some serious BF hunting. I don’t live in Scotland so it has to be BF hunting. The Big Guy interests me more anyway.

I think the only way any of us will truly know is when they have Nessie or Bigfoot in a cage, and on public display. *listens to loud boos, death threats* Fakes are too easy to do, the camera lies- and even when it doesn’t, we’re all left with continual doubts, analysis, and we’re no better informed than we were before.

This is the words of Gordon T. Holmes today in a reply e-mail he sent to me.

At the end of the day, get the Experts to examine my evidence and hopefully they will prove nothing has been faked. I wouldn’t dare stick my neck out if I knew it was. Just for the record, this time I stated the object I captured on Video in Lochness was 4 to 5 foot long, not 45 foot long.

“a sort of medical condition I have for visualising a sort of frame from a Dream whilst being conscious. Intricate Patterns rotate, or the inside of a room appears to be within arms length of me”

Holmes may in part be describing entoptic patterns. These brightly colored visual patterns (sometimes known as “form constants”) are internally-generated during altered states of consciousness, or in the hypnopompic state between sleeping and waking (though it can also hold over into the waking state for a few minutes). I’ve had them frequently over the years. In my experience they are not at all the same as the vivid phosphene patterns you will perceive if you press down upon your closed eyes for several minutes.

J.D. Lewis-Williams and T.A. Dowson associated them with motifs found in Upper Paleolithic rock art. While it is often known as “geometric” imagery, the repeated motifs of lines, grids, nested spirals and other motifs are not totally linear. It has been speculated that the ancient carving of these motifs on rocks has been an effort to either remember the experience, or help induce a repeat of the experience in a sacred space.

The academic research on this has been hampered by occasional nonsense propounded by theoreticians who have not had the experience and appear to be unaware of states of consciousness that can be accessed without drugs or other external agents.

It is good that so many people have kept an open opinion of me. I would be the first to admit I have been fluky, seeing a black Cat in the Yorkshire Dales (never said an Alien one). Unfortunately, that day I did not have my Camcorder. Also, I have captured fairly-like shapes/images in the heather, not real fairies I stress.

I would go along with a big eel maybe a unknown type theory, plus the Phenomenon that is on that loch i think they are both seen by people, and that is why we get so many shapes of Nessie. I have also seen twice something crossing loch wake both sides that was some type of Living creature it was not a bird/otter etc this was big and moved with ease through the water.

I am glad that Mr. Holmes has finally articulated the nagging concern that I’m sure many of us have had after watching the TV interview–that he was misunderstood because of his accent when he was quoted as saying the creature in his video was “45 feet long” instead of “4-to-5-feet long.” This explains why he was referring to it as a possible otter–which wouldn’t have made sense if the creature was 45 feet long. Moreover, unless the vast majority of the creature was submerged, the length limitation takes this animal out of the realm of the cryptoids. And what is there to suggest the presence of submerged body mass? Absent such an indication, this film is actually unremarkable on its face, regardless of who filmed it. Of greater puzzlement is the fact that Mr. Holmes participated in a discussion of the possibility that this was a giant eel even though it is by his own estimation only 4-to-5 feet long. And this disconnect went unnoticed. Which is a problem: As open-minded skeptics for whom science and logic are touchstones, we must ask ourselves “why”, because we do ourselves, and the cause of open-minded skepticism, great damage when we rush to embrace uncritcially. It only aids the debunkers by making it easier for them to dismiss even the true mysteries by association with questionable cases like this.

Holmes’s subjective length estimate isn’t “golden.” (It looks twice as long to me–i.e., nine feet.) He was watching through a view-finder for most of the footage.

Professionals should be able to work out a better estimate, using “Nessie’s” length relative to average wave length (which can be obtained from days with similar conditions) or from the non-zoomed shot in which both the creature and a portion of shoreline are visible. Since Holmes’s shooting position is known, and his camera can be used, a recreation of that shot with a marked gauge at “Nessie’s” position can be used to get a firmer length-estimate.

========
“And what is there to suggest the presence of submerged body mass?”

Its apparent coherence and solidity through thirty seconds as it moved at a brisk speed through the water. True, it was fuzzy in the initial views, but it was suggestive enough to give it provisional credence, until more intense photo enhancement and stabilization had been done. (For which see the next thread in this discussion.)